LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR IN NORTH

Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

November 1999

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Richmondshire in .

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman) Professor Michael Clarke (Deputy Chairman) Peter Brokenshire Kru Desai Pamela Gordon Robin Gray Robert Hughes CBE

Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive)

©Crown Copyright 1999 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS

page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11

6 NEXT STEPS 31

APPENDIX

A Final Recommendations for Richmondshire: Detailed Mapping 33

B Draft Recommendations for Richmondshire (May 1999) 37

A large map illustrating the proposed ward boundaries for Richmond is inserted inside the back cover of the report.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England

30 November 1999

Dear Secretary of State

On 3 November 1998 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of Richmondshire under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in May 1999 and undertook an eight-week period of consultation.

We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation. We have substantially confirmed our draft recommendations, although a modification has been made (see paragraphs 139-140) in the light of further evidence. This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Richmondshire.

We recommend that Richmondshire District Council should be served by 34 councillors representing 24 wards, and that changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that the whole Council should continue to be elected together.

We note that you have now set out in the White Paper, Modern Local Government – In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, HMSO), legislative proposals for a number of changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as that new legislation is in place we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews.

I would like to thank members and officers of the District Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of Richmondshire These recommendations seek to ensure that the on 3 November 1998. We published our draft number of electors represented by each district recommendations for electoral arrangements on 25 councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having May 1999, after which we undertook an eight- regard to local circumstances. week period of consultation. ● In eight of the proposed 24 wards the ● This report summarises the representations number of electors per councillor would we received during consultation on our draft vary by more than 10 per cent from the recommendations, and offers our final district average initially. recommendations to the Secretary of State. ● Electoral equality is forecast to improve further, with the number of electors per We found that the existing electoral arrangements councillor in all but one ward expected to provide unequal representation of electors in vary by less than 10 per cent from the Richmondshire because: average for the district in 2003. Colburn ward would vary by 11 per cent. ● in 16 of the 26 wards the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by Recommendations are also made for changes to more than 10 per cent from the average for parish and town council electoral arrangements the district and 10 wards vary by more than which provide for: 20 per cent from the average; ● by 2003 electoral equality is not expected to ● revised warding arrangements and the improve, with the number of electors per redistribution of councillors for the parishes councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 of Hunton and Richmond. per cent from the average in 17 wards, and by more than 20 per cent in 11 wards. All further correspondence on these Our main final recommendations for future recommendations and the matters discussed electoral arrangements (Figures 1 and 2 and in this report should be addressed to the paragraphs 139-140) are that: Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will not make ● Richmondshire District Council should have an order implementing the Commission’s 34 councillors, the same as at present; recommendations before 11 January 2000: ● there should be 24 wards, instead of the The Secretary of State current 26; Department of the Environment, ● the boundaries of 24 of the existing wards Transport and the Regions should be modified, resulting in a net Local Government Sponsorship Division reduction of two, and two wards should Eland House retain their existing boundaries; Bressenden Place ● elections should continue to take place for SW1E 5DU the whole council every four years.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

1 Addlebrough 1 Askrigg ward (the parishes of Askrigg, Map 2 Bainbridge and Low Abbotside); Aysgarth ward (part – the parishes of Aysgarth and Thornton Rust)

2 Barton 1 Barton ward (part – the parishes of Barton, Map 2 Cleasby, and Stapleton)

3 Bolton Castle 1 Bolton Manor ward (part – the parishes Map 2 of Castle Bolton with East & West Bolton, Preston-under-Scar, Redmire and Wensley); Aysgarth ward (part – Carperby-cum- Thoresby parish); ward (part – Bellerby parish)

4 Brompton-on-Swale 2 Swaleside ward (part – the parishes of Map 2 & Scorton Brompton-on-Swale and Easby); Scorton ward (the parishes of Bolton-on-Swale, Ellerton-on-Swale, Scorton and )

5 Catterick 2 Catterick with Tunstall ward (part – Map 2 Catterick parish)

6 Colburn 3 Unchanged (Colburn parish) Map 2

7 Croft 1 Croft on Tees ward (the parishes of Map 2 Croft-on-Tees, Dalton-on-Tees and Eryholme); St Michael with St Luke ward (part – parish)

8 Gilling West 1 St Agathas ward (part – the parishes of Map 2 Aske and Gilling with Hartforth & Sedbury); Kirby Hill ward (part – the parishes of Gayles, Kirby Hill, Ravensworth and Whashton)

9 Hawes & 1 Unchanged (the parishes of Hawes and Map 2 High Abbotside High Abbotside)

10 Hipswell 2 Hipswell ward (Hipswell parish); Map 2 Swaleside ward (part – St Martin’s parish)

11 Hornby Castle 1 Lower Dale ward (part – Arrathorne and Maps 2 and A2 Hornby parishes, and part of Hunton parish); Catterick with Tunstall ward (part – the parishes of Appleton East & West, Brough with St Giles and Tunstall)

12 Leyburn 2 Leyburn ward (part – Leyburn parish); Map 2 Urevale ward (part – Harmby parish)

viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

13 Lower 1 Urevale ward (part – the parishes of Akebar, Map 2 Barden, Constable Burton, East Hauxwell, Finghall, Garriston, , , Thornton Steward and West Hauxwell); Lower Dale ward (part – Patrick Brompton and Newton-le-Willows parishes)

14 Melsonby 1 Barton ward (part – Manfield and Cliffe Map 2 parishes); Stanwick ward (part – Aldbrough and Melsonby parishes)

15 Middleham 1 Middleham & ward (part – the Map 2 parishes of Calderbergh with East Scrafton, Coverham with Agglethorpe, Out, East Witton Town, Melmerby, Middleham and West Scrafton)

16 Middleton Tyas 1 St Michael with St Luke ward (part – the Map 2 parishes of Middleton Tyas and Moulton); St Agathas ward (part – Skeeby parish)

17 Newsham with 1 Kirby Hill (part – the parishes of Caldwell, Map 2 Eppleby Dalton, , & Carkin, Newsham and West Layton); Stanwick ward (part – Eppleby and parishes)

18 Penhill 1 Aysgarth ward (part – the parishes of Map 2 Bishopdale, Burton cum Walden, Newbiggin and Thoralby); Middleham & Coverdale ward (part – Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town parishes); Bolton Manor ward (part - parish)

19 Reeth & 1 Reeth ward (part – the parishes of Map 2 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale, Marrick and Reeth, Fremington & Healaugh); Lower Swaledale ward (part – the parishes of Marske and New Forest)

20 Richmond Central 2 Richmond Central ward (part); Richmond Map 2 and East ward (part) large map

21 Richmond East 2 Richmond East ward (part) Map 2 and large map

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

22 Richmond West 2 Richmond West ward (part); Richmond Map 2 and Central ward (part) large map

23 Scotton 2 Scotton ward (Scotton parish); Lower Maps 2 and A2 Dale ward (part – part of Hunton parish)

24 Swaledale 1 Grinton & Upper Swaledale ward (the Map 2 parishes of Grinton, Melbecks and Muker); Reeth ward (part – Ellerton Abbey parish); Lower Swaledale ward (part – the parishes of Downholme, Hudswell, Stainton and Walburn)

Note: Map 2 and Appendix A, including the large map in the back of the report, illustrate the proposed wards outlined above.

x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Richmondshire

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1998) of electors from (2003) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Addlebrough 1 1,050 1,050 11 1,056 1,056 2

2 Barton 1 1,029 1,029 9 1,077 1,077 4

3 Bolton Castle 1 1,014 1,014 8 1,052 1,052 1

4 Brompton-on-Swale 2 1,808 904 -4 2,189 1,095 6 & Scorton

5 Catterick 2 1,727 864 -8 2,090 1,045 1

6 Colburn 3 2,415 805 -15 2,775 925 -11

7 Croft 1 970 970 3 1,037 1,037 0

8 Gilling West 1 954 954 1 968 968 -7

9 Hawes & 1 1,060 1,060 12 1,057 1,057 2 High Abbotside

10 Hipswell 2 1,464 732 -22 2,174 1,087 5

11 Hornby Castle 1 767 767 -19 1,069 1,069 3

12 Leyburn 2 1,791 896 -5 1,954 977 -6

13 Lower Wensleydale 1 1,005 1,005 7 1,031 1,031 -1

14 Melsonby 1 963 963 2 1,021 1,021 -2

15 Middleham 1 1,022 1,022 8 1,051 1,051 1

16 Middleton Tyas 1 1,027 1,027 9 1,056 1,056 2

17 Newsham 1 932 932 -1 948 948 -9 with Eppleby

18 Penhill 1 995 995 6 1,020 1,020 -2

19 Reeth & 1 1,000 1,000 6 1,032 1,032 0 Arkengarthdale

20 Richmond Central 2 2,144 1,072 14 2,222 1,111 7

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND xi Figure 2 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Richmondshire

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1998) of electors from (2003) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

21 Richmond East 2 2,150 1,075 14 2,227 1,114 7

22 Richmond West 2 2,090 1,045 11 2,158 1,079 4

23 Scotton 2 1,718 859 -9 2,041 1,021 -2

24 Swaledale 1 952 952 1 959 959 -8

Totals 34 32,047 --35,264 --

Averages --943 --1,037 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on material provided by Richmondshire District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

xii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains our final recommendations effective and convenient local government in their on the electoral arrangements for the district of areas, while allowing proper reflection of the Richmondshire in North Yorkshire. We have now identities and interests of local communities. reviewed the districts in North Yorkshire (excluding York) as part of our programme of periodic electoral 7 Second, the broad objective of PERs is then reviews (PERs) of all principal local authority areas to achieve, so far as practicable, equality of in England. We expect to undertake a PER of York representation across the district as a whole. For unitary authority in 2000/1. example, we will require particular justification for schemes which would result in, or retain, an 2 This was our first review of the electoral electoral imbalance of over 10 per cent in any ward. arrangements of Richmondshire. The last such Any imbalances of 20 per cent or more should only review was undertaken by our predecessor, the arise in the most exceptional circumstances, and Local Government Boundary Commission will require the strongest justification (LGBC), which reported to the Secretary of State in July 1977 (Report No. 222). The electoral 8 Third, we are not prescriptive on council size. arrangements of North Yorkshire County Council We start from the general assumption that the were last reviewed in August 1984 (Report No. existing council size already secures effective and 477). We intend reviewing the County Council’s convenient local government in that district but we electoral arrangements in due course. are willing to look carefully at arguments why this might not be so. However, we have found it 3 In undertaking these reviews, we have had necessary to safeguard against upward drift in the regard to: number of councillors, and we believe that any proposal for an increase in council size will need to ● the statutory criteria contained in section 13(5) be fully justified: in particular, we do not accept of the Local Government Act 1992; that an increase in a district’s electorate should automatically result in an increase in the number of ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral councillors, nor that changes should be made to the Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the size of a district council simply to make it more Local Government Act 1972. consistent with the size of other districts.

4 We are required to make recommendations to 9 In July 1998, the Government published a the Secretary of State on the number of councillors White Paper, Modern Local Government – In Touch who should serve on the District Council, and the with the People, which set out legislative proposals number, boundaries and names of wards. We can for local authority electoral arrangements. In two- also make recommendations on the electoral tier areas, it proposed introducing a pattern in arrangements for parish and town councils in the which both the district and county councils would district. hold elections every two years, i.e. in year one half of the district council would be elected, in year 5 We have also had regard to our Guidance and two half the county council would be elected, Procedural Advice for Local Authorities and Other and so on. The Government stated that local Interested Parties (updated in March 1998), which accountability would be maximised where every sets out our approach to the reviews. elector has an opportunity to vote every year, thereby pointing to a pattern of two-member 6 In our Guidance, we state that we wish wards (and divisions) in two-tier areas. However, it wherever possible to build on schemes which have stated that there was no intention to move towards been prepared locally on the basis of careful and very large electoral areas in sparsely populated effective consultation. Local interests are normally rural areas, and that single-member wards (and in a better position to judge what council size and electoral divisions) would continue in many ward configuration are most likely to secure authorities.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 10 Following publication of the White Paper, we advised all authorities in our 1998/99 PER programme, including the North Yorkshire districts, that until any direction is received from the Secretary of State, the Commission would continue to maintain its current approach to PERs as set out in the March 1998 Guidance. Nevertheless, we considered that local authorities and other interested parties might wish to have regard to the Secretary of State’s intentions and legislative proposals in formulating electoral schemes as part of PERs of their areas.

11 This review was in four stages. Stage One began on 3 November 1998, when we wrote to Richmondshire District Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified North Yorkshire County Council, North Yorkshire Police Authority, the local authority associations, Yorkshire Local Council’s, parish and town councils in the district, the Member of Parliament and the Members of the European Parliament for the Yorkshire & Humber region, and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited the Borough Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of representations, the end of Stage One, was 8 February 1999. At Stage Two we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.

12 Stage Three began on 25 May 1999 with the publication of our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Richmondshire in North Yorkshire, and ended on 19 July 1999. Comments were sought on our preliminary conclusions. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation and now publish our final recommendations.

2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

13 The district of Richmondshire in North 17 At present, each councillor represents an Yorkshire, covers two of the best known Yorkshire average of 943 electors, which the District Council dales, Wensleydale and Swaledale, and two-thirds of forecasts will increase to 1,037 by 2003 if the the district falls within the Yorkshire Dales National present number of councillors is maintained. Park. The district contains the three main market However, due to demographic and other changes towns of Richmond (the administrative centre), over the past two decades, the number of electors Leyburn and Hawes, which together represent over per councillor in 16 of the 26 wards varies by more a third of the population, and Catterick – the largest than 10 per cent from the district average and in 10 British Army base in the world, where 16,000 wards by more than 20 per cent. The worst soldiers and their dependents reside. Richmondshire imbalance is in Richmond Central ward where the is one of the most sparsely populated districts in the councillor represents 66 per cent more electors country with a population density of only 0.3 than the district average. persons per hectare which, together with the rural topography of the district, has a significant influence on patterns of activity, settlement, communication and community identity. The district is completely parished and comprises 99 parishes.

14 To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards, we calculated the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each ward (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the district average in percentage terms. In the text which follows this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.

15 The electorate of the district is 32,047 (February 1998). The Council currently has 34 members who are elected from 26 wards. Outside the three wards covering Richmond town, the wards are predominantly rural in nature. Twenty of the wards are each represented by a single councillor, four are two-member wards and two are three-member wards. The Council is elected as a whole every four years.

16 Since the last electoral review there has been an increase in the electorate in the district with around 12 per cent more electors since the last review. The most notable increases have been in Lower Dale, Richmond East and Scotton wards, with approximately 600, 500 and 800 more electors respectively.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3 Map 1: Existing Wards in Richmondshire

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 3: Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1998) of electors from (2003) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Askrigg 1 801 801 -15 806 806 -22

2 Aysgarth 1 886 886 -6 902 902 -13

3 Barton 1 1,281 1,281 36 1,329 1,329 28

4 Bolton Manor 1 848 848 -10 878 878 -15

5 Catterick with 2 2,085 1,043 11 2,752 1,376 33 Tunstall

6 Colburn 3 2,415 805 -15 2,775 925 -11

7 Croft on Tees 1 571 571 -39 590 590 -43

8 Grinton & 1 656 656 -30 663 663 -36 Upper Swaledale

9 Hawes & 1 1,060 1,060 12 1,057 1,057 2 High Abbotside

10 Hipswell 2 1,334 667 -29 2,041 1,021 -2

11 Kirby Hill 1 1,042 1,042 11 1,065 1,065 3

12 Leyburn 2 1,763 882 -6 1,932 966 -7

13 Lower Dale 1 1,010 1,010 7 1,020 1,020 -2

14 Lower Swaledale 1 381 381 -60 381 381 -63

15 Middleham & 1 1,240 1,240 32 1,278 1,278 23 Coverdale

16 Reeth 1 915 915 -3 947 947 -9

17 Richmond Central 1 1,569 1,569 66 1,689 1,689 63

18 Richmond East 3 3,122 1,041 10 3,189 1,063 2

19 Richmond West 2 1,693 847 -10 1,729 865 -17

20 St Agathas 1 881 881 -7 890 890 -14

21 St Michael 1 1,101 1,101 17 1,172 1,172 13 with St Luke

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5 Figure 3 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1998) of electors from (2003) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

22 Scorton 1 614 614 -35 783 783 -25

23 Scotton 1 1,490 1,490 58 1,813 1,813 75

24 Stanwick 1 999 999 6 1,061 1,061 2

25 Swaleside 1 1,324 1,324 40 1,539 1,539 48

26 Urevale 1 966 966 2 983 983 -5

Totals 34 32,047 --35,264 --

Averages --943 --1,037 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Richmondshire District Council’s submission. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 1998, electors in Lower Swaledale ward were substantially over-represented by 60 per cent, while electors in Richmond Central ward were substantially under-represented by 66 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

18 During Stage One we received 19 20 Our proposals would have resulted in representations, including district-wide schemes significant improvements in electoral equality, with from Richmondshire District Council and from the number of electors per councillor in 16 of the Richmondshire District Labour Party, and 24 wards varying by no more than 10 per cent representations from Richmondshire Constituency from the district average. This level of electoral Liberal Democratic Party, 12 parish and town equality was forecast to improve further, with only councils and parish meetings, three district one ward varying by more than 10 per cent from councillors and a local resident. In the light of these the average in 2003. Colburn ward would have representations and evidence available to us, we varied by 11 per cent from the average. reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Richmondshire in North Yorkshire.

19 Our draft recommendations were based on the District Council’s proposals, which achieved improvements in electoral equality, and utilised a mix of single-, two- and three-member wards. However, we moved away from the District Council’s scheme in a number of areas using a proposal put forward by the District Labour Party, the Constituency Liberal Democratic Party and others, together with some of our own proposals. We proposed that:

(a) Richmondshire District Council should be served by 34 councillors, as at present, representing 24 wards, two fewer than at present;

(b) the boundaries of 24 of the existing wards should be modified, resulting in a reduction of two, while two wards should retain their existing boundaries;

(c) there should be new warding arrangements for Hunton parish and revised warding arrangements for Richmond parish.

Draft Recommendation Richmondshire District Council should comprise 34 councillors, serving 24 wards. The whole Council should continue to be elected together every four years.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 7 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

21 During the consultation on our draft Richmond Conservative recommendations report, 25 representations were received. A list of all respondents is available on Association request from the Commission. All representations may be inspected at the offices of Richmondshire 25 The Conservative Association stated that, with District Council and the Commission. two exceptions, it accepted the Commission’s draft recommendations. However it opposed the formation of a new Penhill ward, supporting instead Richmondshire District the retention of the existing wards of Askrigg, Council Aysgarth, Bolton Manor and Middleham with Coverdale, stating that this would better reflect the 22 The District Council stated that “in principle the geography locally. The Conservative Association also majority of the proposals were accepted”, subject to opposed the draft recommendation for a new two- two areas where it proposed amendments. First, it member Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward, reiterated its support for two single-member wards instead supporting the retention of two single- of Brompton-on-Swale and Scorton. Second, it member wards in this area. considered that Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town parishes should form part of Middleham ward, due Richmondshire District to the geography and community identity of the areas concerned. Labour Party

26 The District Labour Party supported the North Yorkshire County draft recommendation to create a two-member Council Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward. It also supported the inclusion of The Larches estate in 23 The County Council objected to our draft Scotton ward, the inclusion of St Martin’s parish in recommendations on the grounds that “the review Hipswell ward and the inclusion of East Witton of electoral arrangements in each district has been Out parish in Middleham ward. carried out as a self-contained exercise, without regard for its implications for the electoral 27 The District Labour Party opposed the arrangements for the County Council”. draft recommendation dividing Harmby and Spennithorne parish between two different wards.

24 It reiterated its view that “significant benefits” It also opposed the proposal to include Brough will flow to local electors from wards and divisions with St Giles parish in a new Hornby Castle ward, having shared boundaries, wherever practicable, as instead proposing to include it in Colburn ward. it believed that a high degree of coterminosity is a pre-requisite for securing effective and convenient Parish Councils local government and to properly reflect the identities and interests of local communities. It 28 At Stage Three we received representations argued that more enduring electoral arrangements from two town councils, 12 parish councils and would have been achieved if the implications for four parish meetings in the district. county electoral divisions had been recognised earlier in the review process, allowing district and 29 Aysgarth & District Parish Council expressed county reviews to be carried out concurrently. concern at the proposed Penhill ward, stating that

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 9 the present arrangements in this area seemed to Other Representations better reflect local geography. It also expressed concern about the administration of its joint parish 33 A further three representations were received in council if its constituent parishes were divided response to our draft recommendations, from two between two wards. Bellerby Parish Council councillors and a local resident. opposed the proposal to transfer Bellerby parish from Leyburn ward to Bolton Castle ward, instead 34 Councillor Forth, member for Leyburn ward, preferring the existing arrangements. Harmby Parish opposed the proposal to transfer Bellerby parish Council opposed the proposals for the parish for from Leyburn ward to Bolton Castle ward. community reasons. Burton-cum-Walden Parish Councillor Heseltine, member for Scorton ward, Council opposed the draft recommendations for its opposed the proposal for a two-member area, arguing that it had closer ties with the area Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward, instead lying within the existing Aysgarth ward than with supporting the District Council’s proposals for two the parishes of Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town. single-member wards. He argued that the proposed warding of Brompton-on-Swale parish 30 Middleham Town Council rejected the contained in the District Council’s proposals could proposals for Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town be justified, as there are sufficient electors in the parishes on the grounds that they would not reflect area at present to form a ward. the geography locally. West Scrafton Parish Meeting expressed concern at the possible location 35 A resident of Leyburn stated that, under the of the polling station serving its area, if Carlton District Council’s rules, Leyburn Town Council Town and Carlton Highdale parishes were was entitled to nine town councillors, and transferred to a new Penhill ward, as its polling requested a consequential increase in the Town station is currently sited in Carlton. Hunton Parish Council’s representation. He also considered that Council proposed an increase in the number of “with regard to your recommendation that councillors representing the parish. The Parish elections on the District Council should only take Council also requested that the Commission place every four years ... many people would should instruct the District Council to carry out a welcome an electoral system in which part of the parish boundary review to transfer the proposed council is elected on a more frequent basis.” The Larches parish ward from Hunton parish to Scotton parish.

31 Brompton-on-Swale Parish Council supported our proposed Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward. Uckerby Parish Meeting and Scorton Parish Council opposed the proposed Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward, stating that it would not reflect community identities locally. Instead they both favoured the District Council’s proposal for two single-member wards in this area. Manfield with Cliffe Parish Council and St Martin’s Parish Council both opposed the draft recommendations for their areas. Dalton Parish Meeting opposed the proposals in its area, mainly due to community and geographical reasons. Newton-le-Willows Parish Council queried the draft recommendations for its area.

32 Richmond Town Council broadly supported the draft recommendations, with the exception of two proposals for amendments to ward boundaries in Richmond town. Brough with St Giles Parish Meeting and Catterick Parish Council each supported the draft recommendations for their areas. Scotton Parish Council supported our draft recommendations.

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 36 As described earlier, our prime objective in should ari0 Tsh, am.iexyile ustg elect0j -7.70 Tc-1.25588TD 0.0191T* 0.32eqcum6(omcw [(per 9.9(e)0( will r)17.6(equr)17.6(7 Tw [(strter the same)]TJ TD 0.rticular just.(Guidan4e)Tj /0 T39)Tj60 65)]T87 0 .8832 392.4929 T* 0.0E02 Tw [(elF)40ich rfor)17 the dance considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Richmondshire is to achieve electoral equality. In doing so we have regard to the statutory criteria set out in the Local Government Act 1992 – the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the interests and identities of local communities – and Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972, which refers to the number of electors per councillor being “as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of the district or borough”.

37 In relation to Schedule 11, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on assumptions as to changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place within the ensuing five years. We must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries and to maintaining local ties which might otherwise be broken.

38 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral scheme which provides for exactly the same number of electors per councillor in every ward of an authority. There must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum.

39 Our Guidance states that, while we accept that the achievement of absolute electoral equality for the authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be kept to the minimum, such an objective should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should start from the standpoint of absolute electoral equality and only then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors, such as community identity. Regard must also be had to five-year forecasts of change in electorates. We will require particular justification for schemes which result in, or retain, an imbalance of over 10 per cent in any ward. Any imbalances of 20 per cent and over

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 11 expressed concern that there was little evidence that arriving at a pattern of two-member wards (with the expected increase in registration had occurred. just one single-member ward), “the number of In response, the District Council confirmed that councillors for the district would emerge from the the final published version of the 1999 register new wards as identified and not be a prior differed from the draft version, since a number of condition”. electors had been added after the draft version had been compiled. 47 In our draft recommendations we stated that, having considered the size and distribution of the 43 In our draft recommendations we stated that electorate, the geography and other characteristics we took a cautious approach to arguments relating of the area, together with the representations to improvements in voter registration. We noted received, we had concluded that the achievement of that we would only take such claims into account electoral equality and the statutory criteria would for the purposes of five-year forecasts where best be met by retaining a council of 34 members. credible evidence is provided that under- registration exists and that active steps were being 48 At Stage Three we received no further proposals taken to improve the level of electoral registration, or evidence regarding council size and are therefore with some evidence of success. We noted the confirming our draft recommendation for a council increased figures included in the February 1999 size of 34 as final. electoral register, and concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support the District Council’s Electoral Arrangements forecast figures. We accepted that forecasting electorates is an inexact science and, having given 49 As set out in our draft recommendations report, consideration to the District Council’s figures, we carefully considered the representations were content that they represented the best received, including the two district-wide schemes estimates that could reasonably be made at this from the District Council and the District time. We stated that we welcomed further evidence Labour Party. Both the district-wide schemes on electorate forecasts during Stage Three. would have provided significant improvements to electoral equality across the district. From the 44 At Stage Three Saint Martin’s Parish Council representations received some considerations stated that “we also understand that Catterick emerged which informed us when preparing our Garrison are at present considering which ‘brown draft recommendations. field’ sites to release for redevelopment as housing and this could effect electoral numbers quite 50 First, the current electoral arrangements dramatically”. However, in considering electorate provide for a mix of one-, two- and three-member forecasts we must only have regard to probable wards in Richmondshire. After considering the developments over the five-year period to 2003 White Paper, Modern Local Government – In Touch and cannot have regard to development which is at with the People, the District Labour Party proposed present under consideration or which is a pattern of two-member wards across the district unconfirmed. Having re-examined the Council’s (with the except for a single-member Catterick electorate forecasts we are content that they Garrison: West Colburn ward). We received no represent the best estimates which can be made at other support for such a ward pattern. Indeed the the present time. preference of the District Council for retaining a pattern of single-member wards in the more Council Size sparsely populated rural areas of the district, as exists at present, appeared to reflect the views of 45 As already explained, the Commission’s starting many of the parish councils in the district. point is to assume that the current council size facilitates effective and convenient local 51 Second, we noted the preference of all government. respondents for ward patterns which would respect the natural boundary between the dales of 46 In our draft recommendations we noted that Swaledale and Wensleydale. Richmondshire District Council currently has 34 members, which the District Council proposed 52 We judged that maintaining a mix of single-, should be retained. The District Labour Party two- and three-member wards and, as detailed proposed a council size of 33, stating that, in earlier, a council size of 34 members, would

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND facilitate the best electoral scheme in the district. local democracy are best served by basing our We concluded, therefore, that we should base our recommendations on schemes which are generated draft recommendations on the District Council’s locally, address the statutory criteria, and achieve a scheme. We considered that this scheme would high level of electoral equality. provide a better balance between electoral equality and the statutory criteria than the current 57 Nevertheless, we recognise that coterminosity arrangements or the alternative proposals between county divisions and district wards is submitted at Stage One. However, to improve capable of being conducive to effective and electoral equality further and having regard to local convenient local government, and we place a high communities, we proposed modifying the District value on its achievement as part of our reviews of Council’s proposals in four areas. county council electoral arrangements.

53 As stated earlier, North Yorkshire County 58 At Stage Three the District Council accepted the Council objected to our draft recommendations. It majority of our draft recommendations, subject to argued that the Commission’s approach was likely two amendments: one in the area of the proposed to lead to “significant reductions” in the existing Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward, the other in level of coterminosity, and urged us to change the the area of the proposed Middleham and Penhill review process so that district and county council wards. Richmond Conservative Association stated reviews could be carried out concurrently during that it broadly accepted our draft recommendations the Stage One consultation period. but proposed that the existing wards of Askrigg, Aysgarth, Bolton Manor and Middleham with 54 The approach we have adopted in our PERs of Coverdale should be retained on their existing two-tier county areas is the same as that taken by boundaries and that two single-member wards our predecessor, the Local Government Boundary should be retained in the Brompton on Swale and Commission. That is to first review the electoral Scorton areas. We received no other representations arrangements of each of the district council areas in relating to our proposals for the district as a whole. the county and then, once the necessary electoral change orders have been made for the districts, to 59 We also received representations during Stage review those of the County Council. This ensures Three from a number of parish and town councils and that, as required by Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act, parish meetings opposing our draft recommendations, our recommendations for electoral division with some alternative configurations for the wards boundaries have regard to district ward boundaries, covering their areas although some supported the and that these are fixed and not subject to change. existing arrangements. However, as previously noted, we are unable to consider any single area in isolation 55 This is an issue which has arisen in a number of but must have regard to the impact which any review areas. It is indicative of the tensions which modification would have upon the achievement of can arise between the achievement of electoral electoral equality across the district as a whole. We equality within the individual districts of a county, have therefore sought to evaluate any such proposal each of whose electoral arrangements can vary from a parish council or other interested party in the significantly in terms of councillor:elector ratios light of the impact which it would have upon the and ward sizes, and across county council electoral electoral equality for both individual wards and divisions, while also seeking some measure of across the wider area. coterminosity between the two. These tensions are not readily reconciled. 60 We have reviewed our draft recommendations in the light of the representations received during 56 In certain cases, it has been put to us that in Stage Three and the further evidence obtained reviewing district electoral arrangements we should thereafter and have modified our draft prescribe that ward patterns and sizes should be recommendations. For district warding purposes, such that they would be compatible with county the following areas, based on existing wards, are council divisions. We do not believe this to be an considered in turn: approach the Commission should take. As a Commission, we rely heavily on local authorities (a) Richmond (three wards); and others to put proposals to us on how the electoral arrangements within their individual areas (b) Grinton & Upper Swaledale, Lower Swaledale might be improved. We believe that the interests of and Reeth wards;

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 13 (c) Barton, Croft on Tees, Kirkby Hill and Richmond East ward (both at 7 per cent in 2003) Stanwick wards; and 11 per cent above in Richmond West ward (4 per cent in 2003). Under the District Labour (d) St Agathas, St Michael with St Luke, Scorton Party’s proposed council size of 33, the number of and Swaleside wards; electors per councillor would be 11 per cent above (e) Catterick with Tunstall, Colburn, Hipswell, the district average in Richmond Central ward (5 per Lower Dale and Scotton wards; cent above in 2003), 8 per cent above in Richmond

(f) Leyburn, Middleham & Coverdale and Urevale East ward (2 per cent in 2003) and 9 per cent above wards; in Richmond West ward (2 per cent in 2003). However, since we were proposing a 34-member (g) Askrigg, Aysgarth, Bolton Manor and Hawes & council, we calculated that electoral variances based High Abbotside wards. on the District Labour Party’s proposed boundaries would, in fact, be broadly similar to those under the 61 Details of our draft recommendations are set District Council’s proposals. out in Figures 1 and 2, and illustrated on Map 2 and in Appendix A, including the large map 66 In our draft recommendations report we inserted at the back of this report. carefully considered the proposals received in relation to Richmond. We noted that there was Richmond (three wards) agreement between the two schemes for a pattern of three two-member wards in the town and the 62 The town (and parish) of Richmond lies in the same ward names. Each would also secure centre of the district and is currently served by considerable improvements to electoral equality three district wards: a single-member Richmond across Richmond, particularly by 2003. Although a Central ward, a three-member Richmond East degree of relative under-representation would ward and a two-member Richmond West ward. initially continue in the town, we calculated that by The number of electors per councillor in the wards 2003 the electorate in the town would merit a total is 66 per cent above, 10 per cent above and 10 per of six councillors, as at present. We did not consider cent below the district average respectively (63 per there was any merit in looking beyond the town for cent, 2 per cent and 17 per cent in 2003). alternative warding arrangements as this would not reflect the statutory criteria with regard to 63 The town is currently served by a total of six district councillors and, despite the severe imbalances community identity, and further noted that this was which exist within the town, this is the correct level not proposed by any respondent. We therefore of representation based on the forecast electorate in agreed that Richmond town should be warded as a 2003 and a 34-member council for the district. discrete area, and decided to adopt the District However, some parts of the town are substantially Council’s proposals for the three wards in under-represented while other parts are relatively Richmond, as we judged that the District Council’s over-represented and there is therefore a need to proposals would utilise, in the main, clearer redraw the ward boundaries within the town. boundaries and were supported by Richmond Town Council. 64 At Stage One we received proposals from the District Council and the District Labour Party for 67 At Stage Three, Richmond Town Council alternative warding for Richmond town. The two supported our draft recommendations, but submissions each proposed that Richmond should proposed two amendments in Richmond town. comprise three two-member district wards, First it proposed that Anchorage Hill and Maison retaining the existing ward names of Richmond Dieu should be retained in Richmond East ward. Central, Richmond East and Richmond West, Second it proposed that “it would be simpler if the although each proposed different boundaries whole periphery of the Market Place were in one between the wards. The District Council stated ward instead of two and therefore the bottom of that Richmond Town Council supported its Frenchgate should be in West ward”. proposals. 68 We have given careful consideration to the 65 Under the District Council’s proposal for a amendments which Richmond Town Council have council size of 34, the number of electors per proposed. With regard to the Town Council’s first councillor would be 14 per cent above the district proposal to include Anchorage Hill and Maison average in both Richmond Central ward and Dieu in Richmond East, we have calculated that

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND this would transfer 124 electors from Richmond ward in this area would not have secured good Central ward to Richmond East ward. As a result of electoral equality. Under the District Council’s such a modification, the number of electors per proposals, the number of electors per councillor councillor would be 7 per cent above the district would be 6 per cent above the district average in average in Richmond Central ward (1 per cent in Reeth & Arkengarthdale ward (equal to the 2003) and 21 per cent above in Richmond East ward average in 2003) and 1 per cent above the average (13 per cent in 2003). We note that such a in Swaledale ward (8 per cent below in 2003). modification would lead to a less equitable distribution of electorate between the two wards 72 Richmondshire District Labour Party proposed concerned and do not consider that such a change a two-member Reeth & Muker ward in this area, to would better reflect the statutory criteria. With regard replace the wards of Grinton & Upper Swaledale, to the Town Council’s second proposal, we note that Lower Swaledale and Reeth. It considered that while it would have a negligible effect on electoral such a ward would achieve good electoral equality equality it would entail dividing Frenchgate between while reflecting community identities and interests. two district wards. We do not consider that such a The District Labour Party did not consider that the modification represents a substantial improvement on argument for single-member wards in sparsely our draft recommendations in this area. We are populated areas applied in Swaledale, instead therefore confirming our draft recommendations for arguing that the area contains “a ‘ribbon’ of the wards of Richmond Central, Richmond East and habitation [that] occupies a small part of what is Richmond West as final. Our final recommendations otherwise largely unpopulated moorland”. The for Richmond are illustrated on the large map inserted number of electors per councillor would be 1 per at the back of the report. cent above the district average in its two-member Reeth & Muker ward (7 per cent below the average Grinton & Upper Swaledale, Lower in 2003), based on a 33-member council. Swaledale and Reeth wards 73 In our draft recommendations report we 69 These three wards are situated in the north-west considered the representations received for this of the district and are each represented by a single area. We welcomed the fact that both schemes councillor. Grinton & Upper Swaledale ward would have achieved significant improvements in comprises the parishes of Grinton, Melbecks and electoral equality compared to the existing Muker; Lower Swaledale ward comprises the arrangements. However, we were concerned at the parishes of Downholme, Hudswell, Marske, New size of the area covered by a two-member ward in Forest, Stainton and Walburn; and Reeth ward this part of the district, as proposed by the District comprises the parishes of Arkengarthdale, Ellerton Labour Party. As stated earlier, we acknowledge the Abbey, Marrick and Reeth, Fremington & District Council’s preference for retaining single- Healaugh. The area as a whole is markedly over- member wards in sparsely populated rural areas represented, with the number of electors per where this would meet the objectives of the review. councillor in each ward being 30 per cent, 60 per We conclude that single-member wards in this area cent and 3 per cent below the district average would better reflect the statutory criteria and be in respectively (36 per cent, 63 per cent and 9 per cent line with the current ward pattern. We therefore in 2003). included the District Council’s proposed Reeth & Arkengarthdale and Swaledale wards as part of our 70 At Stage One, the District Council referred to draft recommendations. the rural and sparsely populated nature of this area and consequently proposed that it should be 74 At Stage Three we received no detailed covered by two new single-member wards. Reeth comments on our proposals for the wards in this & Arkengarthdale ward would comprise the area and are therefore confirming our draft parishes of Arkengarthdale, Marrick, Marske, New recommendations for Reeth & Arkengarthdale and Forest and Reeth, Fremington & Healaugh. Swaledale wards as final.

71 The Council’s proposed Swaledale ward would Barton, Croft on Tees, Kirby Hill and comprise the parishes of Downholme, Ellerton Stanwick wards Abbey, Grinton, Hudswell, Melbecks, Muker, Stainton and Walburn. The District Council stated 75 These four wards are situated in the north-east that, although this ward would be the largest corner of the district. Barton ward (comprising the geographically in the district, creating a smaller parishes of Barton, Cleasby, Cliffe, Manfield,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 15 Newton Morrell and Stapleton) and Croft on Tees parishes of Caldwell, Dalton, East Layton, Forcett ward (comprising the parishes of Croft-on-Tees, & Carkin, Gayles, Kirby Hill, Newsham, Dalton-on-Tees and Eryholme) are each Ravensworth, West Layton and Whaston, while represented by a single councillor. There are large Stanwick ward comprises the four parishes of electoral imbalances in these two wards: the Aldbrough, Eppleby, Melsonby and Stanwick St number of electors per councillor is 36 per cent John. The number of electors per councillor is 11 above the district average in Barton ward (28 per per cent above the district average in Kirby Hill cent in 2003) and 39 per cent below in Croft-on- ward (3 per cent in 2003) and 6 per cent above the Tees ward (43 per cent in 2003). The two wards of average in Stanwick ward (2 per cent in 2003). Kirby Hill and Stanwick are detailed later. 80 At Stage One, as a result of the changes which 76 At Stage One, in order to address the it proposed to the south and east, the District considerable electoral inequality in the two wards, Council proposed two new district wards to cover the District Council proposed transferring Cliffe the majority of the area of the existing Kirby Hill and Manfield parishes from the existing Barton and Stanwick wards. It proposed a new single- ward to form part of the new wards of Newsham member Melsonby ward, comprising Aldbrough with Eppleby and Melsonby respectively. The and Melsonby parishes (currently in Stanwick Council also proposed a new Croft ward ward) and Manfield parish (in Barton ward). comprising the existing Croft on Tees ward and Although the Council’s proposals for this area North Cowton parish (currently in St Michael with would include Cliffe and Manfield parishes, which St Luke ward). It stated that it had received no together form a joint parish council, in separate objections to such arrangements from the parishes district wards it added that “the two parishes have concerned. The number of electors per councillor stated that they have no objections to being would be 9 per cent above the district average in separated”. Barton ward (4 per cent in 2003) and 3 per cent above the average in Croft ward (equal to the 81 To the west, the District Council proposed a average in 2003). new Newsham with Eppleby ward, comprising the parishes of Caldwell, Dalton, East Layton, Forcett 77 The District Labour Party proposed a new two- & Carkin, Newsham and West Layton (in Kirby member Barton & North Cowton ward in this Hill ward), Eppleby and Stanwick St John parishes area, comprising the existing Croft on Tees ward (in Stanwick ward) and Cliffe (in Barton ward). together with the parishes of Barton, Newton The District Council stated that both wards would Morrell and Stapleton (currently in Barton ward) have good internal road links. Under its proposals and North Cowton parish (in St Michael with St the number of electors per councillor would be 1 Luke ward). It considered that the new ward would per cent below the district average in Melsonby reflect community identities and interests. Under ward (5 per cent below in 2003) and 2 per cent its proposals, the number of electors per councillor above in Newsham with Eppleby ward (6 per cent would be 3 per cent below the average in Barton & below in 2003). North Cowton ward (7 per cent below in 2003). 82 Richmondshire District Labour Party proposed 78 In arriving at our draft recommendations for a new two-member Aldbrough St John & the area, we carefully considered the alternative Newsham ward in this area, comprising the proposals for this area. While each would have existing Kirby Hill ward, Stanwick ward except substantially improved the electoral equality in the Melsonby parish, and the parishes of Cleasby, Cliffe two wards, the District Council’s proposals would and Manfield (in Barton ward), arguing that such a have provided better electoral equality by 2003 configuration would provide a balance of the while largely respecting existing community ties. statutory criteria. Under the District Labour Again we judged that retaining two single-member Party’s proposals the number of electors per wards in this part of the district would best meet councillor would be 2 per cent above the district the statutory criteria. We therefore included the average in Aldbrough St John & Newsham ward (6 District Council’s proposed Barton and Croft per cent below in 2003). wards as part of our draft recommendations. 83 We gave due consideration in our draft 79 The single-member Kirby Hill and Stanwick recommendations report to the proposals received wards together cover the remainder of this area. for this area. Both the District Council’s and the Kirby Hill ward currently comprises the 10 District Labour Party’s schemes would have

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND provided similar levels of electoral equality by be more readily understandable to the electorate 2003. However, we judged that the District locally, while retaining reasonable electoral equality Council’s scheme would provide a satisfactory in the area. We are therefore confirming our draft balance of the statutory criteria while being recommendations for the wards of Barton, Croft, compatible with the recommendations which we Melsonby and Newsham with Eppleby as final, had put forward for neighbouring wards. subject to transferring Cliffe parish to Melsonby Consequently we adopted the District Council’s ward, as outlined above. proposed Melsonby and Newsham with Eppleby wards as part of our draft recommendations. St Agathas, St Michael with St Luke, Scorton and Swaleside wards 84 At Stage Three Dalton Parish Meeting opposed the proposals for its area, arguing that “it would be 86 These four single-member wards are situated in quite inappropriate to separate Dalton from its the north-east of the district. St Agathas ward natural neighbours, especially Gayles, Kirby Hill comprises the parishes of Aske, Gilling with and Whashton”. Manfield with Cliffe Parish Hartforth & Sedbury and Skeeby, while St Michael Council (representing Cliffe and Manfield parishes) with St Luke ward comprises the parishes of opposed the proposals for its area, arguing that Middleton Tyas, Moulton and North Cowton. The to divide the two parishes between different number of electors per councillor is 7 per cent wards would not reflect existing community ties below the district average in St Agathas ward (14 and would be confusing to the electorate. We per cent in 2003) and 17 per cent above the received no other views relating to our draft average in St Michael with St Luke ward (13 per recommendations for the four wards in this area. cent in 2003). Scorton and Swaleside wards are described later. 85 We have given careful consideration to the views which we have received in these areas. While 87 At Stage One, the District Council proposed two we are sympathetic to Dalton Parish Meeting’s single-member wards to represent much of the area preference for remaining in the same ward as the covered by the existing St Agathas and St Michael villages of Gayles, Kirby Hill and Whashton, we with St Luke wards. It proposed a new Gilling West are unable to look at any single area in isolation, ward comprising Aske and Gilling with Hartforth & but must have regard to the impact which any Sedbury parishes (currently in St Agathas ward) change would have upon the achievement of together with the parishes of Gayles, Kirby Hill, electoral equality across the whole district. We note Ravensworth and Whashton (in Kirby Hill ward); that the Parish Meeting’s submission did not and a new Middleton Tyas ward comprising contain detailed proposals for alternative warding Middleton Tyas and Moulton parishes (in St Michael arrangements for the area. However, we judge that with St Luke ward) and Skeeby parish (in St Agathas to combine Dalton parish with neighbouring ward). North Cowton parish would form part of its villages as outlined in its submission would not Croft ward, detailed earlier. The Council stated that achieve an acceptable level of electoral equality for its proposals would provide improved electoral this ward or, as a consequence, for the wider area. equality while reflecting community identities and With regard to Manfield with Cliffe Parish interests in the areas concerned. Under its proposals Council’s submission, we note its objection to the the number of electors per councillor would be 1 per placing of the two parishes in separate district cent above the district average in Gilling West ward wards as, it considered, it could cause confusion (7 per cent below the average in 2003) and 9 per among the electorate locally, together with its cent above the average in Middleton Tyas ward (2 preference for being represented by the current per cent in 2003). Middleton Tyas Parish Council member for Barton ward. We have calculated that supported the District Council’s proposed to transfer Cliffe parish from Newsham with Middleton Tyas ward. Eppleby ward to Melsonby ward would mean that the number of electors per councillor would be 2 88 The District Labour Party proposed a two- per cent above the average in Melsonby ward (2 member Gilling, Melsonby & Middleton Tyas ward per cent below in 2003) and 1 per cent below in for this area, which would comprise the existing St Newsham with Eppleby ward (9 per cent below in Agathas ward together with Melsonby parish 2003). We note that this modification would unite (currently in Stanwick ward) and Middleton Tyas both Manfield and Cliffe parishes within a single and Moulton parishes (in St Michael with St Luke district ward, a proposal which we consider would ward). The District Labour Party stated that this

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 17 ward would “bring together a number of larger “it is not proposed that a parish councillor be parish electorates and community interests”. Under allocated at this stage to represent Gatherley parish its proposals the number of electors per councillor ward as the properties are not yet completed ... and would be 4 per cent above the district average in the matter should be resolved at a later date”. The Gilling, Melsonby & Middleton Tyas ward (1 per District Council noted that, while its proposals cent below in 2003). North Cowton parish would were supported by “Scorton and surrounding form part of its proposed Barton & North Cowton parishes”, it understood that Brompton-on-Swale ward, detailed above. Parish Council was opposed to such a proposal. Finally, it proposed that the modified Swaleside 89 In our draft recommendations report we ward should be renamed Brompton-on-Swale. considered the alternative views which we had Under the District Council’s proposals the number received for this area. We noted the improved of electors per councillor would be 14 per cent electoral equality which would have resulted under above the district average in Brompton-on-Swale both schemes, and particularly under the District ward (5 per cent above in 2003) and 22 per cent Labour Party’s proposals, although this was based below the average in Scorton ward (6 per cent on a 33-member council. However, in arriving at above in 2003). our recommendations we noted that we could not look at any area in isolation and must consider the 93 Richmondshire District Labour Party and impact which any changes would have on the Richmondshire Constituency Liberal Democrats warding arrangements for the district as a whole. both proposed creating a new two-member ward in In view of the scheme which we put forward in the this area, comprising the parishes of Bolton-on- north of the district, we were unable to adopt the Swale, Brompton-on-Swale, Easby, Ellerton-on- District Labour Party’s proposed wards. We Swale, Scorton and Uckerby, which the District concluded that the District Council’s proposed Labour Party proposed should be named Brompton- wards of Gilling West and Middleton Tyas would on-Swale & Scorton ward. Consequently, the provide a satisfactory balance between electoral District Labour Party considered that the proposed equality and the statutory criteria, and put them warding of Brompton-on-Swale parish was forward for consultation. unnecessary. Under the District Labour Party’s proposals, based on a council size of 33, the number 90 At Stage Three we received no further views of electors per councillor would be 7 per cent below specifically commenting on our proposals for the the average in Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton wards of Gilling West and Middleton Tyas and are ward (2 per cent above in 2003). Under the Liberal therefore confirming our draft recommendations Democrats’ proposals for a council size of 34, the for these wards as final. number of electors per councillor would be 4 per cent below the average in Brompton-on-Swale & 91 Scorton ward (comprising the parishes of Scorton ward (6 per cent above in 2003). Bolton-on-Swale, Ellerton-on-Swale, Scorton and Uckerby) and Swaleside ward (comprising the 94 We also heard from Bolton-on-Swale Parish parishes of Brompton-on-Swale, Easby and St Meeting, Scorton Parish Council, Uckerby Parish Martin’s) are each represented by a single member. Council and Councillor Heseltine, member for The number of electors per councillor is 35 per Scorton ward, who all supported the District cent below the district average in Scorton ward (25 Council’s proposals for two single-member wards per cent in 2003) and 40 per cent above the district in this area. Brompton-on-Swale Parish Council average in Swaleside ward (48 per cent in 2003). and Councillor Fryer, member for Swaledale ward, both supported a two-member ward for the area. 92 At Stage One, in order to address the serious St Martin’s Parish Council also supported a two- electoral inequality in these two wards, the District member ward for the area, stating that it opposed Council proposed two modifications. First, it the District Council’s proposal to transfer St proposed transferring St Martin’s parish from Martin’s parish to Hipswell ward as it would not Swaleside ward to Hipswell ward (detailed later). reflect community ties. Second, it proposed new warding for Brompton- on-Swale parish, with a new Gatherley parish ward 95 In our draft recommendations we considered covering that part of Brompton-on-Swale parish the submissions received for this area. We noted east of the A1, and then including that parish ward that while both the proposal for two single- in a modified Scorton district ward. It stated that member wards and the proposal for one two-

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND member ward would achieve good electoral equality member Scorton ward. However, we remain by 2003, the electoral variance in 1998 under two concerned at the poor electoral equality which single-member wards would be considerably worse would currently exist in Scorton ward under such than under the two-member ward. an option and note that a clear alternative exists in this case in the form of our draft recommendation 96 Furthermore, we are unable to recommend creating a two-member Brompton-on-Swale & warding a parish where the affected area contains Scorton ward would address such inequality. few or no electors, or put forward recommendations Consequently, we judge that, while the arguments for the allocation of representation which would be in this area are finely balanced, the need to secure dependent on future developments taking place, as improvements in electoral equality outweighs other under the District Council’s proposal for warding considerations. We are therefore confirming our Brompton-on-Swale parish. Consequently, we were draft recommendations for this area as final. persuaded that a two-member ward in this area would provide a better balance of the statutory Catterick with Tunstall, Colburn, criteria. While we were sympathetic to St Martin’s Hipswell, Lower Dale and Scotton Parish Council’s request that the parish should be wards included in such a two-member ward, to make such a modification (involving some 130 electors) 99 These five wards are situated in the centre and would have had an adverse effect on electoral east of the district. Together, Catterick with equality in the two wards which would be Tunstall, Colburn, Hipswell and Scotton wards modified. We therefore put forward the proposal contain many of the armed forces personnel made by both the District Labour Party and the stationed at Catterick Garrison. Each of the two Constituency Liberal Democrats for a two-member district councillors serving Catterick with Tunstall Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward as part of our ward, which currently comprises the parishes of draft recommendations. Under a 34-member Appleton East & West, Brough with St Giles, council, the number of electors per councillor Catterick and Tunstall, currently represents 11 per would be 4 per cent below the average in the ward cent more electors than the district average (6 per cent above in 2003). (forecast to worsen to 35 per cent in 2003). The councillor serving Lower Dale ward, 97 At Stage Three Richmondshire District Labour which comprises the parishes of Arrathorne, Party and Brompton-on-Swale Parish Council Hornby, Hunton, Newton-le-Willows and Patrick supported the proposed two-member Brompton- Brompton, represents 7 per cent more electors than on-Swale & Scorton ward. The District Council, the average (2 per cent fewer in 2003). The district Richmond Conservative Association, Scorton councillor for Scotton ward (and parish) represents Parish Council, Uckerby Parish Meeting and 58 per cent more electors than the average (75 per Councillor Heseltine all opposed the proposal for a cent in 2003). Overall there is a high degree of two member Brompton-on-Swale & Scorton ward, under-representation in this area. mainly due to local community identities and geography, instead favouring two single-member 100 At Stage One, the District Council proposed a wards in this area. Councillor Heseltine also argued re-configuration of wards in this area. It proposed that there are sufficient electors in the Gatherley a new two-member Catterick ward comprising Road area of Brompton-on-Swale ward to justify only the parish of the same name. In addition it the formation of a parish ward, as proposed by the proposed that Brough with St Giles parish should District Council. be warded, to create a new Walkerville parish ward comprising 125 properties which are to be built 98 We have reconsidered our draft over the next five years in the west of the parish. It recommendations in the light of the further views stated that “it is not proposed that a parish received during Stage Three. We note the councillor be allocated to the Walkerville parish arguments made by the District Council and others ward at this stage as the houses have not yet been regarding the separate community identities and built”. The Council proposed that Walkerville interests of the area concerned. We have also noted parish ward should be combined with Colburn the comments of Councillor Heseltine in support parish to form a modified Colburn ward (discussed of the viability of creating a parish ward in the later). It also proposed warding Hunton parish, Gatherley Road area of Brompton-on-Swale parish thereby creating a new The Larches parish ward, in order to facilitate the retention of a single- comprising 228 electors in the north-east of the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 19 parish, and including this parish ward with Scotton councillor in their proposed Hornby Castle ward parish in a modified Scotton district ward. The would be 12 per cent above the district average in Council informed us that the proposed warding of 2003. Brough with St Giles Parish Meeting Hunton parish had the support of Hunton and opposed the proposed warding of the parish. Scotton parish councils. 104 In our draft recommendations report we noted 101 The District Council proposed that the that normally our concern would be with the remainder of Catterick with Tunstall ward proposed warding of Brough with St Giles parish (Appleton East & West and Tunstall parishes and as the proposed Walkerville parish ward would the rest of Brough with St Giles parish) and the have no electors, and the District Council has remainder of the existing Lower Dale ward (the proposed that representation should be conditional parishes of Arrathorne, Hornby and Patrick on future development. This has been discussed Brompton and part of Hunton parish) should form earlier in paragraph 92. However, of greater a new single-member Hornby Castle ward. Under significance is the fact that Brough with St Giles is the District Council’s proposals the number of a parish meeting and there is no provision in the electors per councillor would be 8 per cent below legislation for warding a parish that does not have the district average in Catterick ward (1 per cent a parish council. We therefore considered above in 2003), 5 per cent below in Hornby Castle alternative configurations in this area. ward (12 per cent below in 2003) and 9 per cent below in Scotton ward (2 per cent below in 2003). 105 We calculated that combining the whole of Brough with St Giles parish with Catterick parish 102 Alternatively, the District Labour Party to form a new two-member ward would not proposed a new two-member Catterick Village & achieve acceptable electoral equality. In view of our Brough with St Giles ward comprising Catterick proposals elsewhere, we were precluded from parish and part of Brough with St Giles parish. It combining Brough with St Giles parish with areas similarly proposed that Brough with St Giles to the north or west. Consequently we judged that should be warded and Walkerville parish ward the District Council’s proposals for the wards of should form part of a new Colburn Town ward Catterick, Hornby Castle and Scotton would with the area to its west. The parishes of Appleton provide the best alternative warding arrangement East & West and Tunstall (currently in Catterick for this area, subject to two amendments. First, we with Tunstall ward) should be combined with the proposed including the whole of Brough with St area to the south and west to form a new two- Giles parish in Hornby Castle ward. Second, and as member Harmby, Bellerby & Hunton ward, a consequence of the first amendment, we (discussed later). The District Labour Party argued proposed transferring Patrick Brompton parish to that Brough with St Giles parish shared Lower Wensleydale ward. We considered that these community identity and interests with Catterick proposals would ensure the achievement of good and its proposals would, therefore, better reflect electoral equality in this ward, while having regard local communities. It also proposed a modified to the statutory criteria. Under our draft Catterick Garrison: Scotton ward comprising recommendations, the number of electors per Scotton parish and the new The Larches parish councillor would be 19 per cent below the district ward of Hunton parish, as proposed by the District average in Hornby Castle ward, improving to 3 per Council. Under the District Labour Party’s cent below in 2003. The significant improvement proposals for a 33-member council, the number of in electoral equality over the five-year period electors per councillor would be 8 per cent below would be due to new housing developments in the district average in Catterick Village & Brough the ward. with St Giles ward (1 per cent above in 2003) and 12 per cent below the average in Catterick 106 At Stage Three Catterick Parish Council Garrison:Scotton ward (5 per cent below in 2003). supported our draft recommendation for a district ward comprising the parish alone. The Parish 103 The Constituency Liberal Democrats proposed Council also agreed with our proposal to retain the modifying the District Council’s Hornby Castle whole of Brough with St Giles parish in a single ward to include Newton-le-Willows parish district ward. Brough with St Giles Parish Meeting (currently in Lower Dale ward), which it stated supported the proposal to include the entire parish would better reflect community identity. Under a in Hornby ward, stating that such a proposal 34-member council the number of electors per would secure effective local government in its area.

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Richmondshire District Labour Party considered 110 The District Labour Party proposed that the that “relating to Brough with St Giles [parish] ... area comprising Colburn parish and the District its inclusion in the Hornby Castle ward appears to Council’s proposed Walkerville parish ward of be the least favourable option resulting in a Brough with St Giles parish should be divided into variance greater than 10 per cent and a disregard of two new wards, thereby also warding Colburn community links and services”. Consequently it parish. It proposed a new Catterick Garrison:West proposed that Brough with St Giles parish should Colburn ward comprising the area of Colburn be included in Colburn ward. Hunton Parish parish around Colburn Grange Farm and Harley Council stated that it had not expressed support for Hill, to be served by a single councillor and a new the District Council’s proposal to ward the parish, Colburn Town ward comprising the remainder of although it did not object to our proposed division Colburn parish together with Walkerville parish of the parish in principle. Scotton Parish Council ward, to be served by two councillors. The District supported our draft recommendations. Labour Party also proposed a two-member ward comprising Hipswell and St Martin’s parishes to be 107 In arriving at our final recommendations in this called Catterick Garrison: Hipswell & St Martin’s area we have given careful consideration to the ward. Under its proposals the number of electors views which we have received. While we note that per councillor would be 10 per cent below the under the District Labour Party’s proposed district average in Colburn Town ward (3 per cent modification to our draft recommendations the below in 2003), 25 per cent below in Catterick number of electors per councillor would be 12 per Garrison:Hipswell & St Martin’s ward (2 per cent cent below the average in Colburn ward (1 per above in 2003) and 29 per cent below in Catterick cent in 2003), a high level of electoral inequality Garrison:West Colburn ward (6 per cent below in would exist in Hornby Castle ward, the number 2003). Additionally, Colburn Town Council of electors per councillor being 26 per cent supported the retention of the existing Colburn below the average (25 per cent in 2003). We are district ward. As noted earlier, St Martin’s Parish therefore not persuaded to modify our draft Council opposed the proposal to combine the recommendations for the two wards concerned. parish with Hipswell parish to form a modified Additionally, we note the general support for our district ward. proposals in this area. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for the wards of 111 In our draft recommendations we carefully Catterick, Hornby Castle and Scotton as final. considered the representations received. As already stated, we cannot recommend the formation of a 108 Under the current arrangements, both Colburn parish ward which would initially contain no electors, and Hipswell wards are over-represented, although as would be the case in Brough with St Giles parish. some improvement is forecast by 2003. Colburn We therefore looked at possible alternative district ward is served by three councillors, each of whom warding arrangements for the Colburn area. represents 15 per cent fewer electors than the However, our proposals for neighbouring areas district average (11 per cent fewer in 2003). precluded alternative combinations to the north, Hipswell ward is served by two councillors, each of south and west of Colburn and, consequently, we whom represents 29 per cent fewer electors than proposed retaining a three-member Colburn ward on the average (2 per cent fewer in 2003). its existing boundaries and included this as part of our draft recommendations. 109 As described earlier, at Stage One the District Council proposed uniting Colburn parish and 112 The number of electors per councillor in the Walkerville parish ward of Brough with St Giles unchanged Colburn ward would be 15 per cent parish in a modified three-member Colburn ward below the district average (11 per cent in 2003), for district warding purposes. It also proposed unchanged from the current arrangements. We uniting Hipswell parish with St Martin’s parish (in recognised that by 2003 this ward would have the Swaleside ward) in a modified two-member most significant electoral imbalance in the district, Hipswell ward. Under its proposals the number of but we considered that our proposal would electors per councillor would be 15 per cent below represent the best balance of the statutory criteria the district average in Colburn ward (improving to which can be achieved in this area. In addition, we 1 per cent below in 2003) and 22 per cent below adopted the proposals submitted by both the the average in Hipswell ward (improving to 5 per District Council and the District Labour Party for cent above in 2003). a two-member ward comprising the parishes of

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 21 Hipswell and St Martin’s, although we proposed West Scrafton, is served by a single councillor who retaining the existing name of Hipswell ward, as represents 32 per cent more electors than the proposed by the District Council. Under our draft district average (23 per cent in 2003). Urevale recommendations the number of electors per ward, which comprises the 11 parishes of Akebar, councillor would be 22 per cent below the district Barden, Constable Burton, East Hauxwell, average in Hipswell ward, although this is forecast Finghall, Garriston, Harmby, Hutton Hang, to improve to 5 per cent above the average by 2003 Spennithorne, Thornton Steward and West as a result of the growth in electorate and the Hauxwell, is served by a single councillor who campaign to improve voter registration by the represents 2 per cent more electors than the district District Council. In fact the 1999 electoral register, average (5 per cent fewer in 2003). which is now available, shows that the number of electors per councillor has already improved to 14 116 At Stage One, the District Council proposed a per cent below the district average in the proposed re-configuration of these wards in order to address Hipswell ward. the electoral inequality in the wider area. The Council proposed that a modified two-member 113 At Stage Three the District Labour Party Leyburn ward should comprise the parishes of supported our draft recommendation to include St Leyburn and Harmby; a new single-member Martin’s parish in Hipswell ward. It also proposed Lower Wensleydale ward should comprise the including the whole of Brough with St Giles parish existing Urevale ward (except for Harmby parish), in Colburn ward (as detailed above). St Martin’s together with East Witton Out parish (in Parish Council reiterated their Stage One view Middleham & Coverdale ward) and Newton-le- opposing our draft recommendation to include St Willows parish (in Lower Dale ward); and a new Martin’s parish in Hipswell ward. single-member Middleham ward should comprise Middleham & Coverdale ward, except for the 114 As described above, we do not consider that the parishes of Carlton Highdale, Carlton Town and District Labour Party’s proposals for Colburn and East Witton Out. The District Council argued that Hornby Castle wards represent as satisfactory a these warding arrangements would secure balance of the statutory criteria as that contained in improved electoral equality across the area, while our draft recommendations. Moreover, we note generally reflecting community identities and that adopting St Martin’s Parish Council’s interests. It noted that in the case of its proposed preference would have an adverse impact upon Lower Wensleydale ward, “the main objections electoral equality in the two wards concerned, received from the parishes within this ward relate which we consider is not justified by the to historical and social connections”, but added that community identity arguments put forward. We “the parish boundaries will not be altered so this remain of the view that our draft recommendations should not affect any social arrangements within the for the wards of Colburn and Hipswell represent parishes”. The District Council also informed us that the best balance between the need to achieve the parishes of East Witton Out and East Witton improvements to electoral equality, having regard Town would prefer to be within the same district to the statutory criteria, and are therefore ward, as at present, but this had not formed part of confirming them as final. the Council’s scheme. Under the District Council’s proposals, the number of electors per councillor Leyburn, Middleham & Coverdale and would be 5 per cent below the district average in Urevale wards Leyburn ward (6 per cent in 2003), 1 per cent below in Lower Wensleydale ward (7 per cent below in 115 Leyburn, Middleham & Coverdale and Urevale 2003) and 2 per cent above in Middleham ward (5 wards are situated in the south of the district. per cent below in 2003). Leyburn ward, which comprises the parishes of Bellerby and Leyburn, is served by two councillors, 117 The District Labour Party proposed the same each representing on average 6 per cent fewer level of representation but a different configuration electors than the district average (7 per cent in of two two-member wards in this area. It proposed 2003). Middleham & Coverdale ward, which a new Leyburn & Middleham ward comprising the comprises the nine parishes of Caldbergh with East two parishes of the same names, and a new Scrafton, Carlton Highdale, Carlton Town, Harmby, Bellerby & Hunton ward comprising the Coverham with Agglethorpe, East Witton Out, existing Urevale ward (except for Thornton East Witton Town, Melmerby, Middleham and Steward parish), Lower Dale ward (except for the

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND proposed The Larches parish ward of Hunton better reflect local ties, particularly between East parish), the parishes of Appleton East & West and Witton Out and East Witton Town parishes. Such Tunstall (currently in Catterick with Tunstall ward), a proposal would improve electoral equality in the and Bellerby parish (in Leyburn ward). The two wards concerned by 2003 and, we understood, remainder of the existing Middleham & Coverdale enjoy some local support. Under our draft ward would form part of a proposed two-member recommendations, the number of electors per Redmire & Witton ward, as detailed later. The councillor would be 7 per cent above the average in District Labour Party argued that its two proposed Lower Wensleydale ward (1 per cent below in wards would reflect community identities in the 2003) and 8 per cent above the average in areas concerned while achieving improvements in Middleham ward (1 per cent above in 2003). electoral equality. Under the District Labour Party’s proposals the number of electors per councillor 120 At Stage Three the District Council, the would be 8 per cent above the district average in Conservative Association and Middleham Town Leyburn & Middleham ward (6 per cent in 2003) Council opposed the draft recommendation to and 14 per cent above the average in Harmby, include the parishes of Carlton Highdale and Bellerby & Hunton ward (5 per cent in 2003). Carlton Town in a ward to their west, arguing that such a proposal would not reflect local geography 118 The Constituency Liberal Democrats made or community identities. The District Council alternative proposals in this area, arguing that their observed that there “is no direct road linking proposals would take greater account of local Carlton with West Witton, Bishopdale, Burton communities than those put forward by the cum Walden, Newbiggin and Thoralby”, and District Council. Bellerby Parish Council stated argued that Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town that it wished to remain in a ward with Leyburn parishes should form part of the proposed parish. Harmby Parish Council opposed the Middleham ward. Similarly Middleham Town proposal to combine Harmby parish with Leyburn Council opposed our draft recommendations in parish for the purposes of district warding. this area, as including Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town parishes in the proposed Penhill 119 In our draft recommendations report we stated ward would create a “cross dale” ward. West that, in conducting an electoral review of a district Scrafton Parish Meeting expressed concern at the area, we cannot consider any one area in isolation, future location of its polling station, which is and must seek to achieve electoral equality across currently located in Carlton, if the parish is the whole district. In the light of our proposals for transferred to Penhill ward. Bellerby Parish Council the whole district, we were unable to reflect the opposed the proposal to remove Bellerby parish preferences of all respondents. The changes to from Leyburn ward. Harmby Parish Council warding arrangements which we proposed to the opposed the proposal to transfer Harmby parish to west and east of this area precluded us from Leyburn ward, instead arguing that it should retain adopting the options put forward by the District its existing community links with Spennithorne Labour Party, the Constituency Liberal Democrats and other neighbouring villages. Richmond or Bellerby and Harmby parish councils. We District Labour Party also opposed the proposal concluded therefore that the best arrangements for for Harmby parish. Newton-le-Willows Parish the area were provided by the District Council’s Council queried our proposals for the parish, three proposed wards of Leyburn, Lower stating that “it could be argued that our village Wensleydale and Middleham, subject to two voice is not always heard or heeded”. modifications. As detailed earlier, our proposed changes to Hornby Castle ward would involve 121 We have given careful consideration to the transferring Patrick Brompton parish to Lower views which we have received in these areas. In Wensleydale ward to improve electoral equality in the light of the opposition to our draft Hornby Castle ward. As a result, Lower recommendation to include Carlton Highdale and Wensleydale ward would be under-represented Carlton Town parishes in Penhill ward, we have while the neighbouring proposed Middleham ward considered alternative configurations in the area. would be relatively over-represented. We therefore We note that the preference of Richmondshire proposed amending the boundary between the two District Council, Richmond Conservative new wards to include East Witton Out parish in Association and Middleham Town Council to Middleham ward, noting this configuration would retain Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town be more in line with the existing arrangements and parishes in Middleham ward would, together with

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 23 the proposals contained in our draft recommendation 124 At Stage One the District Council proposed to modify the District Council’s Stage One that Hawes & High Abbotside ward should remain proposal for the area, in effect retain a ward on the unchanged, while a new Addlebrough ward should same boundaries as the existing Middleham & comprise Askrigg ward together with Aysgarth and Coverdale ward. Under such a proposal the Thornton Rust parishes (currently in Aysgarth number of electors per councillor would be 32 per ward). It stated that the two wards would each cent above the average in Middleham ward (23 per reflect community identities in the area concerned, cent in 2003), while it would be 18 per cent below achieve good electoral equality by 2003 and form the average in Penhill ward (24 per cent below in wards of a size which is “geographically 2003). While we note that the Coverdale area may acceptable”. Under the District Council’s proposals only be accessed from the remainder of the ward the number of electors per councillor would be 11 via a neighbouring ward we do not consider that per cent above the district average in Addlebrough the electoral inequality which would result under ward and 12 per cent above the district average in the proposals outlined above, can be justified. Hawes & High Abbotside ward (both 2 per cent in We therefore consider that the need to secure 2003). Although minimal electorate growth is good electoral equality in this area outweighs expected in these wards, the degree of under- the arguments relating to the geography and representation would improve as a consequence of community identity of the Coverdale area. In the the growth in electorate elsewhere in the district. absence of other new proposals, we are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for 125 The District Labour Party proposed that a new Middleham ward as final. two-member Hawes & Askrigg ward should comprise the existing wards of Askrigg and Hawes 122 We have considered the views received from & High Abbotside, together with the parishes of Bellerby parish and Harmby parish opposing the Aysgarth, Thoralby and Thornton Rust (in Aysgarth proposals for Leyburn ward. We note that both ward). The District Labour Party considered that its respondents argue that the existing arrangements proposal would create a ward with a community of better reflect community interests and identities identity and of a reasonable geographical size. than the proposals contained in our draft Under its proposal for a 33-member council, the recommendations. We have calculated that number of electors per councillor would be 16 per modifying Leyburn ward to reflect either Bellerby cent above the district average in Hawes & Askrigg Parish Council’s or Harmby Parish Council’s ward (5 per cent above in 2003). concerns would have a detrimental effect on the electoral equality achieved across the wider 126 The Constituency Liberal Democrats proposed area. Moreover, we consider that the draft a single-member Bainbridge ward, on identical recommendations for Leyburn and Lower boundaries to the existing Askrigg ward, for this Wensleydale wards represent a satisfactory balance area. Under its proposal the number of electors per of the need to secure good electoral equality while councillor would remain at 22 per cent below the reflecting the statutory criteria and we therefore district average in 2003. While recognising that confirm them as final. this ward would have fewer electors than the district average, they considered that the Askrigg, Aysgarth, Bolton Manor and topography and community identity of the ward, Hawes & High Abbotside wards together with their proposals for wards to the east, supported such a configuration. We also received a 123 These wards are situated in Wensleydale, and representation from Aysgarth & District Parish are sparsely populated, with the most significant Council, which represents the parishes of Aysgarth, settlement being Hawes, which contains some 900 Bishopdale, Newbiggin, Thoralby and Thornton electors. Each ward is represented by a single Rust. The Parish Council expressed concern at the councillor. The number of electors per councillor in District Council’s proposals, to divide its Askrigg ward, which comprises the parishes of constituent parishes between more than one Askrigg, Bainbridge and Low Abbotside, is 15 per district ward, which it stated could cause problems cent below the district average (22 per cent in for the administration of the joint parish council. 2003), while Hawes & High Abbotside ward, which comprises Hawes and High Abbotside 127 In arriving at our draft recommendations, we parishes, is 12 per cent above the district average (2 carefully considered the proposals put forward in per cent in 2003). this area. While both the District Council’s

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND proposals and the District Labour Party’s proposals ward, which comprises the parishes of Aysgarth, would secure improved electoral equality, the Bishopdale, Burton-cum-Walden, Carperby-cum- District Council’s proposals would provide better Thoresby, Newbiggin, Thoralby and Thornton electoral equality, particularly in 2003. We Rust, is served by a single councillor who considered that we were unable to accept the represents 6 per cent fewer electors than the district Liberal Democrats’ argument that the area should average (13 per cent in 2003). be significantly over-represented as compared to the rest of the district, particularly since good 131 At Stage One, in order to address the relative alternative arrangements had been submitted by over-representation in the area, the District other respondents. Furthermore we judged that the Council proposed a new single-member Bolton District Council’s proposals would generally reflect Castle ward, comprising all of the existing Bolton existing community ties and facilitate a good Manor ward except West Witton parish, together electoral scheme in the rest of the district. We were with Carperby-cum-Thoresby parish (in Aysgarth sympathetic to the concerns of Aysgarth & District ward) and Bellerby parish (in Leyburn ward). It Parish Council with regard to the administration of also proposed a new single-member Penhill ward, its joint parish council, but considered that the comprising the parishes of Bishopdale, Burton- need to achieve fair electoral arrangements across cum-Walden, Newbiggin and Thoralby (in the district outweighed the possible disadvantages Aysgarth ward), Carlton Highdale and Carlton of including constituent parishes in neighbouring Town parishes (in Middleham & Coverdale ward) district wards. We therefore adopted the District and West Witton parish (in Bolton Manor ward). Council’s proposals as part of our draft The District Council stated that its proposals recommendations. would provide good electoral equality while combining parishes which were, in the main, 128 At Stage Three Richmond Conservative linked by good communication routes. Under the Association supported the retention of the existing District Council’s proposal the number of electors Askrigg ward. Aysgarth & District Parish Council per councillor would be 8 per cent above the reiterated its Stage One submission and argued average in Bolton Castle ward (1 per cent above in that the existing arrangements are preferable to 2003) and 6 per cent above the average in Penhill those contained in our draft recommendations. ward (2 per cent below in 2003). The Parish Council stated that it was particularly concerned about the administration of the joint 132 The District Labour Party proposed a new two- parish council if its constituent parishes did not lie member Redmire & Witton ward in this area, wholly within one ward. comprising the existing Bolton Manor ward, Middleham & Coverdale ward except Middleham 129 We have considered the views which we have parish, Burton-cum-Walden and Carperby-cum- received in this area. Both respondents have Thoresby parishes (in Aysgarth ward) and supported the retention of the existing district Thornton Steward parish (in Urevale ward). It warding arrangements in this area. However, as stated that this configuration would achieve noted in our draft recommendations, we remain improved electoral equality while retaining concerned at the poor electoral equality which important local links. Under its proposal for a 33- would result if the existing wards were retained and member council the number of electors per note that any modifications to the draft councillor would be 8 per cent above the district recommendations to retain this area within a single average in Redmire & Witton ward (1 per cent ward would also have a detrimental effect on below in 2003). electoral equality. In the absence of other alternative proposals, we are confirming our draft 133 The Constituency Liberal Democrats proposed recommendations for the wards of Hawes & High a new single-member Bolton Castle ward which Abbotside and Addlebrough as final. would comprise the existing Bolton Manor ward and Carperby-cum-Thoresby parish (in Aysgarth 130 Bolton Manor ward, which comprises the ward), while a new single-member Penhill ward parishes of Castle Bolton with East & West Bolton, would comprise the existing Aysgarth ward, except Preston-under-Scar, Redmire, Wensley and West Carperby-cum-Thoresby parish, together with Witton, is served by a single councillor who Carlton Town and Carlton Highdale parishes (in represents 10 per cent fewer electors than the Middleham & Coverdale ward). Under the Liberal district average (15 per cent in 2003). Aysgarth Democrats’ proposal, by 2003 the number of

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 25 electors per councillor would be 1 per cent above the two wards concerned. Therefore, we remain of the average in Bolton Castle ward and 7 per the view that the achievement of reasonable cent below the average in Penhill ward. Aysgarth electoral equality, taking into consideration the & District Parish Council considered that there geography and community identities of the areas are “physical boundaries which would make it concerned, is best served by our draft difficult to ward together Thoralby, Bishopdale, recommendations for the wards of Bolton Manor Newbiggin, Burton-cum-Walden and West Witton and Penhill, which we are confirming as final. with Carlton Town and Carlton Highdale”. Electoral Cycle 134 In arriving at our draft recommendations, we considered the options available for reconfiguring 137 We received no comments at Stage One wards in this area. While we noted Aysgarth & regarding change to the current electoral cycle for District Parish Council’s concerns, we also Richmondshire as permitted under the existing recognised that the other three proposals received legislation. We therefore proposed no change to for this area would all combine Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town parishes in a ward with parishes the current cycle of whole-council elections for to the west. Each of the three proposals would the district. offer some improvement in electoral equality in comparison with the current arrangements. 138 At Stage Three a resident of Leyburn opposed the However, by 2003 the District Council’s proposals proposal to retain whole-council elections for the are projected to provide a comparable level of district, arguing that “many people would welcome improvement and, we judged, combine parishes an electoral system in which part of the council is with similar community identities and interests, elected on a more frequent basis”. We have together with facilitating our proposals for reconsidered our draft recommendation but consider neighbouring wards. We therefore included the that there is insufficient evidence in support of a District Council’s proposals for the wards of change to the existing electoral cycle. We are therefore Bolton Manor and Penhill as part of our draft confirming our draft recommendation as final. recommendations. Conclusions 135 At Stage Three Richmond Conservative Association opposed our draft recommendations, 139 Having considered carefully all the representations instead supporting the retention of the existing and evidence received in response to our consultation Aysgarth and Bolton Manor wards. As noted report, we have decided substantially to endorse our above, the Conservative Association, the District draft recommendations, subject to modifying the Council and Middleham Town Council opposed boundary between Melsonby and Newsham with our draft recommendations to include the parishes Eppleby wards. of Carlton Highdale and Carlton Town in a new Penhill ward. Bellerby Parish Council opposed the 140 We conclude that, in Richmondshire: proposal to transfer the parish to the new Bolton Castle ward. Burton-cum-Walden Parish Council (a) a council of 34 members should be retained; expressed concern at the proposed Penhill ward, as it considered that it would not reflect existing (b) there should be 24 wards, two fewer than at community identities. present;

(c) the boundaries of all but two of the existing 136 As discussed above, we do not consider that the wards should be modified, resulting in a net proposal to transfer Carlton Highdale and Carlton reduction of two wards; Town parishes to Middleham ward (supported by the District Council, the Conservative Association (d) the whole council should continue to be elected and Middleham Town Council) would achieve a together every four years. satisfactory level of electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. Similarly we consider that 141 Figure 4 shows the impact of our final the retention of the existing warding arrangements recommendations on electoral equality, comparing as favoured by the Conservative Association, and them with the current arrangements, based on Bellerby Parish Council in its own area, would also 1998 and 2003 electorate figures. result in unacceptable levels of electoral equality in 142 As Figure 4 shows, our recommendations

26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 4 : Comparison of Current and Recommended Electoral Arrangements

1998 electorate 2003 forecast electorate Current Final Current Final arrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations

Number of councillors 34 34 34 34

Number of wards 26 24 26 24

Average number of electors 943 943 1,037 1,037 per councillor

Number of wards with a 16 8 17 1 variance more than 10 per cent from the average

Number of wards with a 10 1 11 0 variance more than 20 per cent from the average would result in a reduction in the number of wards wards, it must also be divided into parish wards, so with an electoral variance of more than 10 per cent that each parish ward lies wholly within a single from 16 to eight, with only one ward varying by ward of the district. Accordingly, in our draft more than 20 per cent from the district average. recommendations report we proposed consequential This improved level of electoral equality would changes to the warding arrangements for the improve further in 2003, with only one ward, parishes of Hunton and Richmond to reflect the Colburn, varying by more than 10 per cent from proposed district wards. the average, at 11 per cent. We conclude that our recommendations would best meet the need for 144 Hunton Parish Council is currently served by electoral equality, having regard to the statutory five councillors and the parish is unwarded. In criteria. order to facilitate its proposals for district warding in this area, the District Council proposed that Hunton parish should be warded into two, one Final Recommendation parish ward covering the residential area which Richmondshire District Council should borders Scotton parish, to be called The Larches, comprise 34 councillors serving 24 wards, as and the other covering the remainder of the parish, detailed and named in Figures 1 and 2, and to be called Hunton. The two wards would be illustrated on Map 2 and in Appendix A. represented by two and three parish councillors The whole Council should continue to be respectively. For district warding purposes, the elected together every four years. proposed The Larches parish ward would form part of a modified Scotton district ward and the proposed Hunton parish ward would form part of Parish and Town Council new Hornby Castle district ward. Electoral Arrangements 145 In response to our consultation report, no further comments were received from the District 143 In undertaking reviews of electoral arrangements, Council. Hunton Parish Council proposed an we are required to comply as far as is reasonably increase in the number of councillors serving the practicable with the provisions set out in Schedule parish and also considered that we should instruct 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule provides that if the District Council to carry out a parish boundary a parish is to be divided between different district review to transfer the proposed The Larches parish

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 27 ward from Hunton parish to Scotton parish. Final Recommendation However we do not consider that there is a clear Richmond Town Council should comprise case for an increase to the number of councillors 12 councillors, as at present, representing serving Hunton parish. Moreover with regard to three wards: Central, East and West each the request for a parish boundary review, it lies returning four councillors. The boundaries outside our remit to give such an instruction. We between the three parish wards should suggest that such a request should be forwarded to reflect the proposed district ward the District Council for their consideration. boundaries, as illustrated and named on the large map inserted at the back of the report. 146 Having considered all the evidence received, and in light of the confirmation of our proposed district wards in the area, we confirm our draft 149 As part of the District Council’s Stage One recommendation for warding Hunton parish as final. submission, proposals were made for warding Brompton-on-Swale and Brough with St Giles Final Recommendation parishes to facilitate its district warding proposals. However, as we did not endorse the District Hunton Parish Council should comprise five Council’s proposals for district wards in these areas councillors, as at present, representing two we did not propose any changes to the electoral wards: (Hunton returning three councillors) arrangements of the two parishes concerned. and The Larches (two). The parish ward boundary should reflect the proposed 150 At Stage One we received two further requests district ward boundary in the area, as relating to parishing arrangements. Richmondshire illustrated and named on Map A2 in District Labour Party considered that the District Appendix A. Council should “review the parish boundaries of Hipswell, Scotton and West Colburn to enable the creation of flexible wards within Catterick 147 Richmond Town Council is currently served by Garrison”. We noted that we are unable to review 12 councillors who represent three wards – Central, parish boundaries as part of the present, and that the East and West – which are coterminous with the District Council has the power to review parish district wards. Central ward is represented by three boundaries under the Local Government and Rating parish councillors, East ward by five and West ward Act 1997. by four. In the light of our draft recommendations, for district warding in Richmond, in which we 151 We also heard from a resident of Leyburn who proposed three two-member wards for the town requested an increase in the number of councillors retaining the existing ward names, we proposed serving Leyburn Town Council from eight to 11. modifying the parish ward boundaries to However, we noted that we had not received such correspond with the district ward boundaries in the a request from the Town Council itself, and did not town as proposed by the District Council. We include a recommendation for change as part of proposed that each parish ward should return four our draft recommendations. In his Stage Three councillors. submission, the resident argued that “when one bears in mind the complexity of Leyburn’s 148 In response to our consultation report, commercial affairs, one can readily make an Richmond Town Council commented on the argument for a further one or two councillors to be district ward boundaries for Richmond Central appointed in order that the complex affairs of and Richmond East wards. However, having our town receive proper attention”. However, considered all the evidence received, and in light of in the absence of evidence of widespread support the confirmation of our proposed district wards in for such a change, we are not proposing to the area, we confirm our draft recommendation for modify the electoral arrangements of Leyburn warding Richmond parish as final. Town Council. 152 In our draft recommendations report we

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND proposed that there should be no change to the electoral cycle of parish councils in the district, and are confirming this as final.

Final Recommendation For parish councils, whole-council elections should continue to take place every four years, on the same cycle as that of the District Council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 29 Map 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Richmondshire

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 6. NEXT STEPS

153 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in Richmondshire and submitted our final recommendations to the Secretary of State, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Local Government Act 1992.

154 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give effect to our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an order. Such an order will not be made earlier than six weeks from the date that our recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of State.

155 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:

The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Sponsorship Division Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 31 32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX A

Final Recommendations for Richmondshire: Detailed Mapping

The following maps illustrate the Commission’s proposed ward boundaries for the Richmondshire area.

Map A1 illustrates, in outline form, the proposed ward boundaries within the district and indicates the areas which are shown in more detail on Map A2 and the large map inserted at the back of the report.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed warding of Hunton parish.

The large map inserted in the back of the report illustrates the proposed warding arrangements for Richmond town.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 33 Map A1: Final Recommendations for Richmondshire: Key Map

34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A2: Proposed warding of Hunton parish

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 35 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX B

Draft Recommendations for Richmondshire

Our final recommendations, detailed in Figures 1 and 2, differ from those we put forward as draft recommendations in respect of two wards, where our draft proposals are set out below.

Figure B1: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Ward name Constituent areas

Melsonby Barton ward (part – Manfield parish); Stanwick ward (part – Aldbrough and Melsonby parishes)

Newsham with Kirby Hill (part – the parishes of Caldwell, Dalton, East Layton, Forcett & Eppleby Carkin, Newsham and West Layton); Stanwick ward (part – Eppleby and Stanwick St John parishes); Barton ward (part – Cliffe parish)

Figure B2: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Number of Councillors and Electors by Ward

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1998) of electors from (2003) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

Melsonby 1 934 934 -1 990 990 -5

Newsham with 1 961 961 2 979 979 -6 Eppleby

Source: Electorate figures are based on material provided by Richmondshire District Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 37 38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 39 40 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND